1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to golfing, and more particularly relates to golf training aids. The teachings of the present invention can be applied both to striking a golf ball in general (including driving and pitching), but more particularly to putting a golf ball.
2. Background Information
The present invention is based on the theory that the most efficient method of putting in the game of golf is to swing the putter in a true pendulum motion so that the face of the putter remains square or perpendicular to the line of the intended putt (“square-to-square”) and the putter head remains on the intended line throughout the entire length of the stroke. The components that make up the pendulum “arm” in each golfer are the shoulders, the arms, and the putter.
While this disclosure specifically discusses the “square-to-square” putting stroke theory, it is expressly envisioned that the teachings of this disclosure could be applied to create methods and apparatuses configured to be utilized with the “inside-square-inside” putting stroke theory. Some of these methods/apparatuses are expressly discussed within this disclosure, while others are obviously functional equivalents and modifications of this disclosure.
With regard to the present invention, a pivot point is established between the golfer's two shoulders, from which the pendulum should pivot—all other hinges that exist in the pendulum, i.e. wrists and elbows, should remain constant throughout the stroke. As can be seen in FIGS. 1 and 3, the length of the pendulum or the radius of the arc is established by measuring the distance between the pivot point and the ground. Therefore, as the height of the golfer changes or their pivot point changes, so will the radius and the arc made by the pendulum. While this is one theory, there are other theories about this pendulum and pivot point, including but not limited to the actual pivot point being a point above the golfer's head (FIG. 18). While the preferred theory is discussed herein, this disclosure is clear that other theories exist and the present invention is adaptable to work with these other theories on preferred pendulums, arcs, and pivot points.
The putting stroke as it relates to the actual movement of the putter and in particular the head (and specifically the face of the putter) has three planes. See FIGS. 2a and 2b. Referring first to FIG. 2a, the X PLANE is the plane or angle of the putter face and its relative angle to the path of the intended line (this could also be referred to as whether or not the putter face is square with the stroke path . . . if the putter is not square when the ball is struck, the ball will not travel true to the stroke path). The term “stroke path” intending to likewise include the intended swing plane and/or the intended target line. The Y PLANE is the path of the putter head as it moves along the intended line of the putt (the “front-to-back” stroke path).
Referring now to FIG. 2b, the Z PLANE is the pendulum arc that the putter head should follow when swung. A fourth plane is that in which the putter face is allowed to change its pitch or loft relative to the Z PLANE and is called the W PLANE. It is possible for the W PLANE to change while the putter still remains on line (Y), square to the line (X), and on the perfect arc (Z).
The present invention is configured to address the Z PLANE in such a way that each golfer will be able to be custom fit apparatuses of the present invention for their particular pendulum length and therefore practice swinging the putter in a true pendulum arc that fits his/her specifications.
There are two designs contained in the Whitehouse patent (Patent No. GB 2,020,983) that vary greatly in design and function. One design (Version A) is a base that a putter is attached to by way of slots and the base is curved upward in the back swing. Version B is an adjustable base to which a putter is attached to a sledge device that moves along an inclined plane. The device in the Whitehouse patent dictates the movement of the putter in the X PLANE and the Y PLANE. However, in the Z PLANE, the base of this unit is curved in the backstroke portion of the putting stroke, but is not adjustable for different sizes of users. It is also not indicated that any certain radius length establishes this curve (Version A). In addition, the drawings of Version B indicate a flat plane that is angled upward and adjustable. Page 2 paragraph 25 indicates “a inclined planar member.” Therefore, this unit does not dictate the movement of the putter in the shape of an arc. Furthermore, the sledge in Version B does not allow the putter face to pivot in the W PLANE. The unit indicates on page 2, paragraph 15 that “it denotes a low to low putting stroke”—not one in the shape of an arc. It appears that in both versions the putter is released in the follow through, allowing the golfer to make any number of mistakes or the ability to continue poor habits in this portion of the swing. In both versions, for the ball to be struck while the putter is being controlled in at least the X PLANE and the Y PLANE, the impact point appears to be when the putter is at a descending angle. This angle of attack will cause, in most cases, the golf ball to skid for a distance before beginning to roll. Although the ball position is adjustable, moving it any further away from the notch would mean the putter would not be attached to the base at impact, therefore not guaranteeing a square putter face at impact. In Version A, a specific putter must be used that enables it to fit into and slide along the base. The bases of the units are not adjustable for different grass heights on putting greens or other surfaces such as carpet. Assuming a very short grass level and placing the ball in the slot indicated, the thickness of the base itself would not allow a true ball to putter impact simulation. The base thickness may cause the ball to be struck by the lower portion of the putter instead of the “sweet spot.” If the unit is placed on long grass, the ball may be raised to hit the putter in the sweet spot, but the grass itself, which would occupy the negative space of the ball notch may impede the forward progress of the putter blade.
The Springer patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,437,458) does not allow the putter to be swung by the user in an arc. However, the arc track is wide to allow for golfers with different arcs to use the machine and effectively control the X PLANE and the Y PLANE. This margin for error in the arc track therefore does not dictate the arc or Z PLANE of the putter. The slider unit does not allow the putter rotation in the W PLANE during certain parts of the stroke. The putter is released in the upstroke. It is the opinion of many golf professionals that nothing after the point of club face impact with the ball has any effect on the path or flight of the ball. It may even be proven that if at impact the face of the putter is square and the path of the putter head is on line that the ball will roll true and on line. However, in reality, any golf coach or instructor would agree that a proper follow through is a symptom of success in a swing or a stroke. Therefore, allowing the putter to be released at impact does not teach the golfer how to properly follow through. In this device, the ball must be struck on the upswing. Due to the notch where the ball is positioned to be struck, the putter will always be traveling on the upswing. Impacting the ball on the upswing is thought by many to be the desirable approach.
Some researchers (Pelz, U.S. Pat. No. 4,437,669) have even shown an effective impact position to be two inches ahead of the bottom of the arc of the putter. However, this is the result of testing done in a controlled environment. In reality, there are several variables that may require a golfer to hit the ball at a different position in the stroke, i.e. loft of the individual putter, grass height, grass consistency, direction of grain, grass type, etc. Impact with the center of the ball to the sweet spot of the putter is not feasible in this device. The putter sits in a sled or a half box that contains a bottom with a certain thickness. This thickness, in addition to the thickness of the base, may cause an impact similar to that discussed by Whitehouse.
The device of the Woodson patent (U.S. Pat. No. 4,153,255) forces the putter to follow a backward and forward path that is parallel to the ground at all times or relatively flat. In addition, the unit uses wire or string to connect the putter to the sliding device between the rails. This device does not allow a golfer to hit putts in real life manner. Because the unit has a solid base with some thickness, any ball that is struck would fall off the edge of the base causing it to potentially go off line. Assuming the edge of the base was slanted or ramped to allow a smooth transition, this ramp effect would accelerate the ball, causing the user to have a false sense of feel for the speed of a putt. In addition, this device does not appear to allow the putter to rotate in the W PLANE.
The Donaldson patent (U.S. Pat. No. 3,471,155) does not dictate that the putter move through an arc during the swing. The unit does allow movement in the W PLANE, but only between 0 to 90 degrees (claim 8). This would allow the putter to pivot in the back swing, but not in the follow through. In addition, this unit is not adjustable for different grass conditions. This unit is not adjustable for golfers with different pendulum lengths. It is not possible to impact the ball while the putter is on the upstroke. The thickness of the base and the sliding unit combined may make a center ball to putter sweet spot improbable.
The Lee patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,435,547) is a unit in which the putter is not attached to the device in any physical manner and therefore the user's putting stroke is in no way dictated by the device. Instead, this unit simply measures the characteristics of a user's current putting stroke. This unit appears to give feedback on the three planes, but does not teach the user how to correct errors or what a perfect stroke actually feels like.
The Tucker patent (U.S. Pat. No. 5,074,565) does not dictate the movement of the putter in the X PLANE because the putter is held loosely by the mounting device attached to the shaft in order to allow upward and downward movement. This would also allow rotational movement in the X PLANE. In addition, the device allows the shaft of the putter to slide in the mounting device, which allows the putter to be swung in an arc, but the device does not dictate that the putter is swung with any type of arc or a specific arc. This device uses rails that are parallel to each other and to the ground to dictate the movement of the putter.
The Fletcher patent (U.S. Pat. No. 1,545,648) does not dictate the movement of the putter in the X PLANE because the face of the putter is not manipulated in any way by the device. In addition, the unit does not dictate the arc of the putting stroke in any way and thus does not dictate the movement of the putter in the Z PLANE.
The Sterling patent (U.S. Pat. No. 4,334,684) does not dictate the movement of the putter in the Z PLANE when making the assumption that shaft is held in a fixed position in the mounting device. If this assumption is incorrect, then it would in fact not dictate the X PLANE and would allow for the putter head to move in an arc, but would not dictate that it move in an arc or any specific arc.
In the Pelz patent (U.S. Pat. No. 4,437,669), it should be noted that this device exists in the marketplace in a slightly different form than that which is claimed in the patent. Small, flat rails are available from the company that affix to the face of the putter with adhesive and run parallel to the side rails of the unit. It should also be noted that the putter does not attach to the outer guide rails in any way. Therefore, the argument could be made that the unit does not dictate the putting stroke at all. However, the unit is designed to guide the stoke through auditory and tactile feedback by adjusting the tolerances between the outer guide rails and the putter. To actually dictate the performance of the putter, there would have to be contact between the putter rails and the outer guide rails. However, because the unit is not designed for this type of contact, it would not work properly in a manner that would simulate a real putting stroke. This device does not dictate the movement of the putter in the Z PLANE. Even if the putter rails are attached to a putter and extremely small tolerances are maintained between the rails and the outer guide rails, the putter can still move freely in the Z PLANE. This device is designed as a feedback device and is designed to highlight imperfections in a putting stroke, not necessarily teach the user the feeling of a perfect putting stroke. As it reads in claim #1 “ . . . a visual, audible, and tactual indication of an improper stoke . . . .” In addition, the Pelz device is not adjustable in the Z PLANE for individual golfers.
What is needed is an apparatus/method which simultaneously allows for control of the X, Y and Z PLANES (and optionally the W PLANE) for training a golfer on the correct putting technique. Embodiments of the present invention satisfy this need.
Additional objects, advantages and novel features of the invention will be set forth in part in the description which follows and in part will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon examination of the following or may be learned by practice of the invention. The objects and advantages of the invention may be realized and attained by means of the instrumentalities and combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims.